Memeorandum

March 23, 2008

Pardon My Paranoia

The FT has an interesting article (by Christopher Caldwell of the weekly Standard) about race relations in the US; his launch point was the Obama speech, but we ended up here:

A very interesting book published this week shows why. In Racial Paranoia
(Basic Books, $26/£15.99), the University of Pennsylvania
anthropologist John L. Jackson Jr suggests that extravagant theories of
white racism – from the widespread Aids rumour to Louis Farrakhan’s
allegation that the US actually blew up the levees to cause the deadly
New Orleans floods during Hurricane Katrina – have their roots in the
decorous language that mostly white leaders have invented for talking
about race.

The US has not managed to eliminate racism, Mr
Jackson thinks, but it has succeeded in eliminating racist talk.
Remarks the slightest bit “insensitive” draw draconian punishment.
White people, because they feel thoroughly oppressed by this regime,
assume that it must be some kind of “gift” to minorities, especially
blacks.

It is not. It is more like a torment. It renders the
power structure more opaque to blacks than it has ever been, leaving
what Mr Jackson calls a “scary disconnect between the specifics of what
gets said and the hazy possibilities of what kinds of things are truly
meant”. If the historic enemies of your people suddenly began talking
about you in what can fairly be called a secret code, how inclined
would you be to trust in their protestations of generosity?

This
is the core of the problem Mr Obama aims to address. Bringing
subterranean racial narratives into the light of day, where they can be
debated openly, is a risk. Although the early news coverage of his
speech has been positive, polls appear show that what Americans most
want from Mr Obama is a simple demonstration that he is not like Rev
Wright.

As an example of the PC police in action we need look no further than my previous post. "Old Punk" of the InstaPunk crowd posted his thoughts on why specific behaviors of a specific subset of the black community annoys him [that is a willfully generous but defensible characterization - see below]. Frankly, there is very little in his post I would be inclined to defend, but I would be very curious to learn how widely held his viewpoints might be. As an example, I would guess his aversion to the hip-hop gangsta sub-culture is widely shared.

Well. Rather than trying to look for the message in his message, the Usual Suspects, led by Glenn Greenwald, seized on the offensive sections as an opportunity to brand Glenn Reynolds and the entire conservative movement as racists.

So let me summarize the exchange:

Obama: We should have a national conversation about race.

Old Punk: OK, here is what annoys me about some black people.

Lefties: The Old Punk is a racist, as are all righties.

One might well argue that this does discourage anything like a candid conversation.

BELOW: I assert that the Old Punk has problems with "specific behaviors of a specific subset of the black community". Does that square with this:

I don't hate black people. I can't pretend to be color-blind because
absolutely nothing in my culture will allow me to be. I admire Thomas
Sowell, Duke Ellington, Roberto Clemente, Muhammed Ali, Alexandre
Dumas, Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Count Basie, Tiger Woods, and
Bill Cosby. There are many others but that's a sampling of the famous
folks whose courage, genius, character, and achievements I would be
proud if I could get anywhere in the vicinity of. The bald truth of the
matter is that they're better than I am, and it doesn't arouse a
flicker of racial feeling in me to acknowledge it. They have enriched
and elevated my own experience of life.

On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The
truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it?
I live in an eastern state almost exactly on the fabled Mason-Dixon
line. Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to
their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy.
I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's
impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside
you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner
wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings.
It's like a broadcast dare: Go ahead! Call me a nigger! And then I'll
cap your ass.

There are black people he likes but he hates them as a group - what does that mean? I am opting for the notion that he objects to specific manifestations of a collective black culture, but folks intent on shutting down the dialogue will insist he just doesn't like all blacks.

...If Tom Maguire thinks that when Obama was writing his speech and
Caldwell was writing his piece, what they had in mind for a candid
discussion about race was a bunch of jackasses stating “Here is what I
hate about niggers,” then he probably really didn’t understand the
speech or the FT piece.

Hmm. I have put about as charitable interpretation on the Old Punk's tirade as I care to, but it does lend itself to a less nuanced summary.

"On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable."

I simply cannot believe that a "national dialogue on race" between now and November can help Obama's chances in any way whatsoever. I think it's the last thing he wanted. Starting with Bubba in S. Carolina, the Clintons have sought to make him a "black candidate," and now the whole church thing has blown the issue sky high.

Not to take the race issue seriously, but aren't we actually talking about culture? And isn't the real distinction between people who don't share ideals and values and people who do, regardless of the color? And isn't the war about which set of values will prevail? And finally isn't the real problem that minority's values, require the majority's values to survive?

What actually seems to have happened with Obama's "Race Speech" was that a carefully kept cover has been ripped off of that minority of Black churches that rants like J Wright. The vast majority of Whites has never been exposed to this overt racism from the Black "Christian" community (although quite a few were aware of nutballs like Farrakhan). First, many saw, or at least heard about, J. Wright's awful excuses for Christian sermons. Then, Obama said Wright was a regular part of Black culture.

If Obama had told us he never understood Wright to be racist before, and now that it had been pointed out so forcefully to him he was going to leave that church and denounce wright, the cover could have remained. Now, finally, the entire country has to look at this enormous chasm between Black and White. I doubt that we will look at it for long, though. It's quite ugly, and it would be so nice to go back to petending it doesn't exist.

"Starting with Bubba in S. Carolina, the Clintons have sought to make him a "black candidate," and now the whole church thing has blown the issue sky high."

I'm aware of the Clinton's deep antipathy toward Jews and certainly Senator Clinton's service on Walmart's board is a clear indication of her deep seated union busting sympathies but I believe that the exhibition of anti-black sentiment on their part requires further explication. President Clinton did appoint blacks to cabinet posts, although he was remarkably absent in defense of Espy when he came under suspicion. Nor did he provide much in the way of rebuttal to charges that O'Leary was rather indiscrete in opening Los Alamos to the Chinese. Aside from those instances though, you must admit that his close relationship with Vernon Jordan, turning to him as he did in his hour of need, demonstrates an ability to at least attempt to bridge the racial divide.

The Clinton's attempt to use race as the wedge with which to drive Obama from contention may be simple political expediency rather than an example of racist tendencies on either of their parts. Senator Clinton did not hesitate to throw a Hispanic under the bus when she turned to a black woman to replace her as campaign chief as the campaign faltered.

Or could that just have been a subtle move to give cover for the racist attack on Obama?

It's a very puzzling situation which should be explored in depth and at length. Would Obama really have been forced to deal with the nut who was his pastor and mentor for twenty years had the Clinton's not forced the issue?

I do believe race is still a problem for some people in this country, but I don't think most or even a large percentage of black people feel the way Rev. Wright does about white people.

I don't think a conversation about race will solve the problem. We should take action immediately to rescue the people who are under the sway of Rev. Wright and other racist hate mongers whatever their race may be.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people, the fact that one refrains from using derogatory descriptions; which are freely
traded in the local idiom, is some kind of
'gift' to the African American community.
What they do pick up from the wider culture
is self selectively destructive. Consider:
The AIDS rumor was floated by the KGB
through Indian, Greek & other publications.
The 'we blew up the levees" rumor came from the same dank corners, that alleged cannibalism & murder, and gunfire at rescue
choppers at the Superdrome (which had the interesting side effect of keeping the Pres.
away from what was thought to be an American
version of Fallujah). Interestingly, Robert
Ferrigno's dystopian sequel, Sins of the Assassin, has the levees being destroyed by
Islamist; a conjecture supported by the home town of the US citizen of Saudi extraction; Yusef Hamdi, Morgan City LA; and it's devastating effect on the social fabric. To compound the effect, he was N.Orleans go the way of Atlantis after two
near future super hurricanes. A similar disinformation effort, blaming the Mossad for two nuclear detonations (a reverse take on the now cancelled 'Jericho')lays the groundwork for the Islamization of America.

The Christics floated the CIA cocaine rumor, promoting it through their media contacts in Hollywood. Their ally on the Kerry Committee, a former Church committee
staffer named Jack Blum, gave it a patina of authenticity when Gary Webb, took up the
charge, a decade later. You know hoe perverse the African American culture absorbtion of these memes are; one of the
leading rappers is named 'Rick Ross' the
marketer of the crack epidemic, socalled.

"We should take action immediately to rescue the people who are under the sway of Rev. Wright and other racist hate mongers whatever their race may be."

Sorry. My give a damn about this "problem" got busted in '97 and I don't feel like getting it fixed. Besides, "rescuing" people with feet seems a tad coercive.

I suggest a close reading of "Mau Mauing the Flak Catchers" by Tom Wolfe followed by hearty laughter at the two bit hustlers like Wright, his replacement and their BLT (hold that mayo) Afrocentric farce. The church is stronger in Africa than it is anywhere else in the world and Wright's "brand" would draw either guffaws or condemnation from all but the African Marxist's who are abusing a very small number of congregations.

BHO laid down with dogs in order to advance his political career. Let him scratch his own fleas.

I think tracing the Clinton's use of the race card is more interesting. A day late and a dollar short should be the Red Witch's motto.

It breaks my heart--really it does to have to acknowledge that this two bit self promoter promoted himself out of any real chance of winning the general by making allegiance with hthis crazypants and then too slickly speechifying about the matter in such a way as to tap dance away from the one question he had to answer: Why did you endorse by your presence and contributions and praise this man for 20 years.

The flipside of the Jeremiah Wright issue is whether attending a church where the pastor's sermons are so bland as to be completely unmemorable or easily summarized into "God says go and do good" or "Help each other" or some such is presidential.

-

Also, if Barack is the nominee, I half-hope McCain would point out during a debate that he's lived overseas longer than Obama has.

"I believe that the exhibition of anti-black sentiment on their part requires further explication."

For my part, I can't discern any anti-black or anti-Jewish sentiment in either of them, any more than I could discern an anti-Tsongas or anti-Jerry Brown sentiment. It is simply that Obama now, and Tsongas and Brown in the past, stood between them and their truly neurotic lust for the White House, and thus had to be destroyed--as Spike Lee would say, by any means necessary.

In fact, it's hard to detect in either of them anything properly called "sentiment." There is presidential power, and it must be achieved, and in particular it must be achieved for the Clintons. Nothing else will do; nothing else matters. I doubt that either of them really has any hatred for anyone or anything, unless that person or thing stands in their way on their life-long and single-minded quest. But if he (or it) does stand in their way, it's every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost. They see themselves as survivors in a game without rules, and neither of them would apologize on their deathbed for that view.

Frankly, there is very little in his post I would be inclined to defend, but I would be very curious to learn how widely held his viewpoints might be.
Here's one guy who seems to be showing there's an enthusiastic audience for something very much like OldPunk's views within the African American community, so long as it doesn't come from someone with OldPunk's complexion.

If the historic enemies of your people suddenly began talking about you in what can fairly be called a secret code, how inclined would you be to trust in their protestations of generosity?

Seems that we are going to get our dose of "power/knowledge". However, the interperation seems to not be so much "the primacy of language" but more "the primacy of race." Have Asians and Hispanics (and for that matter 1st generation African immigrants) been given the code book?

The idea that blacks are distrustful of whites (and prone to conspiracy theory about "whites") because of some sort of embedded language code of racism (by whites) seems a bit backwards. Maybe I'm getting a bit wide of the mark here and should get a copy of the book (or the entire FT review-register, humbug!).

Seems that conversation that Bill Clinton wanted to start about race has gotten off to a bit of a rocky start.

Rick-

It's a very puzzling situation which should be explored in depth and at length. Would Obama really have been forced to deal with the nut who was his pastor and mentor for twenty years had the Clinton's not forced the issue?

I'm not so sure. The stuff about Rev. Crazypants would have eventually come out, and its good that it is coming out now because BHO has a significant lead in delegates and can still limp to the finish with a razor thin lead. It now is up to the Clintons to steal it from him and blame it on the Republicans (a difficult prospect).

"On Sunday's 'Meet the Press,' Newsweek editor Jon Meacham hinted that if the Clintons were to execute a 'corrupt bargain' which gave Hillary the nomination, it could lead to a split in the Democrat Party akin to what happened in 1824.

"In that election, only one Party, the Democratic-Republicans, ran presidential candidates. Although Andrew Jackson won the most popular and electoral votes, he didn't receive a majority of either resulting in the House of Representatives controversially giving the nod to John Quincy Adams.

"This skirmish led to a division in the Democratic-Republican Party such that four years later, Jackson ran and won the presidency as a member of the newly created Democratic Party defeating Adams who represented the newly created National Republican Party.

"With this in mind, here's what Meacham said Sunday:

"'Well, my sense of--at every point in this race, Senator Clinton has benefited from a kind of, if not a majority, a silent big plurality of largely female voters who have stepped in at different points and said, "No, not yet with Senator Obama, and we're going to register our belief in her, and her capacity to deal with issues that we believe in strongly." And I think Chuck's exactly right. I mean, what, what some Clinton people have said to me is they have to win someplace they weren't expected to win, and then they could begin to make that argument. I think, depending on where you end up with the, as you were saying, the popular vote, or the pledged delegates, you do have the capacity for a kind of corrupt bargain charge, echoes of 1824, which I think we should always be talking about every Easter. I apologize for that. But that was when...Oh, very quickly, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, Henry Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams. Adams becomes president. Four years later, running on a, running on a campaign saying, "That was a corrupt bargain," Jackson takes over, founds the modern Democratic Party, and here we sit.

"Carrying Meacham's suggestion forward, if Obama has the most popular votes and elected delegates heading to Denver, but the Clintons wangle a deal that gets her the nomination, Obama and his supporters furiously branch off to form another Party."

And in the meantime, John McCain travels to meet with world leaders...

The ad-hoc coalition that supported John Quincy Adams fell apart after his defeat for reelection in 1828. The main opposition to Jackson, the new president, was the National Republican Party, or Anti-Jacksonians created and run by Henry Clay. It shared the same nationalistic outlook as the Adamsites, and wanted to use national resources to build a strong economy. Its platform was Clay's American System of nationally financed internal improvements and a protective tariff, which would promote faster economic development. More important, by binding together the diverse interests of the different regions, the party intended to promote national unity and harmony. The National Republicans saw the Union as a corporate, organic whole. Hence the rank and file idealized Clay for his comprehensive perspective on the national interest. Conversely, they disdained those they identified as "party" politicians for pandering to local interests at the expense of the national interest.[1] The party met in national convention in late 1831 and nominated Clay for the presidency and John Sergeant for the vice presidency. The Whig Party emerged in 1833–34 after Clay's defeat as a coalition of National Republicans, along with Anti-Masons, disaffected Jacksonians, and people whose last political activity was with the Federalists a decade before.

**************

The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. Its initial base was in the Northeast and Midwest. The Party nominated Abraham Lincoln and ascended to power in the election of 1860. The party fought for the Union in the United States Civil War and presided over Reconstruction.

"It now is up to the Clintons to steal it from him and blame it on the Republicans (a difficult prospect)."

That's the strategy as far as I can see. That's why "having this discussion" might not be the best premise that was ever accepted.

Accepting OT's premise that the Clintons loathe without discrimination and have neither morals nor ethics nor any compunction about attempting to shift the responsibility for what is to come to Republicans, I am left with idea that studying the Clinton's perceived profit is probably the most advantageous avenue to pursue.

Will they succeed in convincing the superdelegates to wrest the prize which BHO hs legitimately won from his grasp?

I am left with idea that studying the Clinton's perceived profit is probably the most advantageous avenue to pursue.

I had a long comment and deleted it because it didn't seem to work...

It's the impeachment fight all over again-its about winning. It doesn't matter if it is ugly or if it hurts the party or their defenders in the long run. If I remember my Clinton trivia correctly, she was the one who pushed for the tough stance regarding the Jones lawsuit and dragged her feet regarding Whitewater (talk about paranoia).

One thing that I'm starting to question is if the party will fracture as badly as we imagine (on race, gender, and union support) or will the bloom fall completely off BHO (sort of like Milli Vanilli).

While John McCain spent his Easter vacation time in Iraq and Vice Pres. Cheney is spending his Easter in Israel, Barack and Michelle have jetted off to St. Thomas. So his sainted typical white Grandmother in Hawaii is too ill to travel, but Barack "the dutiful" hasn't bothered to visit her in over a year, not even when the beaches beckon.

In Greenwald's defense, the entire flap about Reynolds aside, Oldpunk did coach his speech in such terms as to ensure retaliation from the left, so he could then appear as a martyr for "saying what people think." The fact of the matter is, you can hate rap music and black thug culture without hating African Americans en masse or holding them responsible for the actions of their youth. The reality is, black people are very conservative. However, conservative kneejerk responses about affirmative action, welfare, drugs, crime, anti-Americanism, etc, etc, seemed targeted explicitly at black people, driving them into the smiling arms of the Democratic party. When blacks or liberals decry racism, conservatives leap to the defensive of WASPs, which is a kneejerk response that only makes a conservative appear as if he has something to be defensive about. Whining and complaining about reverse racism doesn't help, even though it is easy to find examples. Holding blacks accountable for rap music is like holding white people accountable for racism. The many are suddenly responsible for the few. We all know that aside from signing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts into law, Democrats haven't done blacks any favors by and large. However, Republicans must also acknowledge that the South, which voted solidly Democratic over and over again, suddenly stopped in the 60s and switched en masse to the Republican side.
Why is that? (Hint: It wasn't the Vietnam war.)

The fact is, there are 4 things that are totally toxic to political discourse today, and the PC police swarm over every comment. They are:

-racism
-sexism
-patriotism
-religion

The first two are policed by liberals. The last two are policed by conservatives. To approach a dialogue on ANY of them, this "Gotcha!" BS has to stop.

Lit3Bolt
Your post has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, hard to know where to start. The reasoning is common in Leftwing blogs, where you see "and blacks are 10% of the population but 30% of the prison population"(leaving out the little secret that perhaps they have committed 30% of the crimes). Many people are defending Obama by saying Wrights ideas are typical of black churches, so maybe the anti-Americanism shoe fits.
But the silliest argument you make is this idea that Democrats in the South switched to Republicans because they are racist. No, they actually didn't switch at all, the Democrats left them. They went from Truman and Johnson and even Kennedy to Mondale, and Dukakis and Gore and Kerry. The Democraty Party abandoned the South when it got taken over by the left wing of the party.

Peter, hip-hop isn't easy to define because it's not a very rigid category; still, musically, it's usually in four-four time, it has a back beat, it usually depends on comparatively complicated rhythm structures and is often polyrhythmic, the spoken-work chants ("rap") are usually in iambic pentameter --- in fact, most any Shkespearean blank verse can be rapped, eg,

NOW is the winter of OUR dis-con-tent

Made GLO-ri-us summer by THIS son of York

and it usually depends on "found sounds" from samples to album "scratching".

In Greenwald's defense, the entire flap about Reynolds aside, Oldpunk did coach his speech in such terms as to ensure retaliation from the left, so he could then appear as a martyr for "saying what people think."

Perhaps so, but few would have seen Oldpunk's "look at me" post if not for Greenwald's d-baggery. The link from Reynolds went only to the poem, and he most likely got it as a link that went only to the poem. Then the Thing With No Chin (but many names) went looking for smear fodder and dishonestly brought it to a far larger audience by starting a blog-spat.

Whining and complaining about reverse racism doesn't help,

Would reverse racism be just plain racism as defined by Mr. Jackson's code of "decorous language" or are we using one of those other definitions? Because if you strike the "reverse" as unnecessary, you have a standard that could be applied equally.

Holding blacks accountable for rap music is like holding white people accountable for racism.

Honestly don't know what you're getting at here. Are you saying that to hold an individual black person accountable for rap music is like holding an individual white accountable for racism? Explicate, please.

So, lemme get this straight: there’s “very little” in Old Punk’s post that Maguire “would be inclined to defend”, but it’s awful for lefties not to “look for the message in his message”? I mean, is there some important message in his message that isn’t apparent from his actual words, which contain very little that Maguire “would be inclined to defend”? Maybe we all need a Captain Midnight Decoder Ring?

I think Obama has permanently alienated part of the white Democratic blue collar vote he need in some key states to win in November. Part of them will switch from Hillary to McCain, others will vote for McCain because of the Wright tapes and other indications Obama is very left. I don't think he can overcome those losses with increased black turnout.

I don't care if Obama was in church today or not. And I certainly don't care about Hillary's whereabouts on Easter or McCain's.
Bottom line- Obama still has not advocated one policy position except that he says he was right on the Iraq war. But that was when he was an state legistlative backbencher. If he was so against the war, why didn't he join ANSWER and Code Pink and get out there and protest? Where was he when Bush was addressing the UN? What was Obama doing to try and keep America from making this so called "terrible mistake"?
Underneath his soaring rhetoric beats the heart of a candidate for president who has no backbone. No love for country. No love for all Americans. He is an opportunist, a charlitan and would be an absolute disaster as president. He would huddle with Iran and dismiss Iraq. He would summit with Chavez and snub Uribe. He would claim he's for the poor and disadvantaged. But his policies would put most of the 15 million that were removed from federal tax liability under the Bush tax cuts back on the tax rolls.
We don't need a conversation on race because Obama thinks we need one. What we need now more than ever is a conversation about Obama's policies and character.
My two cents- they both stink for reasons described above.

If Obama can't "change" the racist views of his own pastor and his congregation after 20 YEARS, how can we expect him to change the entire country's attitudes on race relations now, or within 4-8 years of a presidential term?

But he can still win in November. As P.T. Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute".

So many people want to believe that he's still a "transcendental" racial figure, a Messiah who will lead us through the wilderness to salvation, that they will ignore the facts and continue to "believe in Obama".

Leftist secularists who religiously worship at the altar of "progressivism".

The hilarious part about this stupid bulls*it, Tom, is the ridiculous irony.

If it was a church, would Glenn Reynolds have walked out of it? Eh? Rather than link to it?

Let's get down to brass tacks: Instapunk's blogger appears to be an offensive racist who apparently holds the entire black community personally responsible for Allen Iverson's existence - (despite the fact that said popular existence was mostly enabled by white men, but that's beside the point).

And Instapundit promoted that blog. And refuses to disown it! Obviously he doesn't find that stuff very offensive, eh? So is the obvious conclusion to be drawn.

The ironic part is that this is the exact same sin he's been tarring Barack Obama about. So all of the anguished wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right blogosphere about Obama/Wright should suddenly cease as, thanks to this little example, you come to understand exactly how easy it is to tolerate/passively endorse wacky racist baloney.

I think Bob Parks has a well written piece,that covers the subject well, at his Site

"I believe America IS ready for the next female or Black president. However, should that happen, that person will not be a Democrat, as that party has yet to acknowledge it’s racist and sexist past, and we all know what happens to those who don’t learn from the sins of their past."

Since Reynolds never claimed he could no more give up oldpunk than he could disown his sainted grandma, the hypocrisy here is actualy yours. You actually do to Reynolds what you falsly claim was done to Obama.

I am not a fan of hyprocrisy-crime but given your persuasion you might want to break all the mirrors in your house lest you find yourself looking at one.

When you set out to fight fire with fire, but there was no fire to begin with, that's called arson.

Faith Based funds for crazypants (I just knew it)
It looks as though Trinity United Church of Christ signed up for President Bush's Faith-based Community Initiatives Program. From the HHS website:

Under its Minority Community Health Coalition Demonstration Grant Program for HIV/AIDS, HHS' Office of Minority Health has made grants to faith-based organizations participating in the Impacto Latino Coalition Project. This project addresses the need for effective prevention programming to change community norms and increase community support for behaviors known to reduce the risk of HIV infection among Latino New Yorkers. The Latino Commission on AIDS, VIP Community Services and five churches are joining together as a coalition to address HIV/AIDS in the Latino community.

The grant program has also provided funds to the South Side HIV/AIDS Coalition in Chicago, a multi-agency group including Trinity United Church of Christ, Provident Hospital of Cook County and the Alliance for Community Empowerment, to provide culturally sensitive and responsive HIV/AIDS education and services to African-Americans.
Update -- Ed Lasky writes:

The irony is palpable. Pastor Wright condemns the very same Federal government that gives his church money. One might also ask what this advocate for the poor is doing driving a Porsche-as has been reported in a recent New Yorker article about Michelle Obama? Money is fungible; money not spent on helping the poor can go towards salaries or perks, such as paying the salary of Pastor Wright's daughter. Pastor Wright placed her in charge of the Church's magazine, which recently gave a controversial award to Louis Farrakhan.

Another dry hole.....what is the relevancy of a he said-I said discussion of whether McCain entertained or didn't entertain changing parties or running with Kerry years ago? It's at most a pitiful effort either to change the subject from Obama's troubles or to try to reinforce doubts about McCain with the conservative base.

But it's just the kind of thing that could help more liberal independents who are tired of the Hillary vs. Obama debacle decide to vote for McCain.

"Over the past four days, I asked seven or eight random (Asian, Mexican-American, and working-class white) Americans in southern California what they thought of Obama’s candidacy — and framed the question with, 'Don’t you think that was a good speech?' The answers, without exception, were essentially: 'Forget the speech. I would never vote for Obama after listening to Wright.'”

He cannot win in November. An increasing number of Democrats know this, and they don't have a clue as to what to do about it.

Right, Ben, for those hoping for change, McCain ought to base his campaign on transcending partisanship. He can't actually do that, of course, but certainly Obama couldn't. Notice I don't say 'can't'. It's as though Obama is already history.

Heh, that was a historical speech already. And Wright is a student of history. What fun!
====================

I was reminded by the upcoming Frontline production; "Bush's War";stocked with all the usual suspects and memes: Clarke, Armitage, Wilson, 'the 16 minutes about yellowcake, Gitmo is a violation of the Geneva conventions; Saddam had nothing to do with AQ which will likely become the lead audiovisual material on historical and political topics of this era; was early in
proposing the Kerry/Christic CIA drug plot allegations I referenced earlier.

Actually, the only incorrect word here is "fals[e]ly". And that was part of the point of Greenwald's post, which you'd figure out if you ever bothered to read it.

Fact is that if Obama hadn't been honest and direct about his relationship with Wright, you would have complained about that instead. When people are looking for a reason to hate you, it's pretty easy to give them one just by getting up in the morning.

Your right slag, even if he were a white guy ( and lets not forget the most liberal member of the Senate, attached at the hip with an indicted corrupt political fixer, and marinated since a child in Marxist rhetoric) I would inexplicably be against Hope and Change.

I dont know why he continues to get up in the morning, except for the slavish devotion of twits like you.

If Obama can't "change" the racist views of his own pastor and his congregation after 20 YEARS, how can we expect him to change the entire country's attitudes on race relations now, or within 4-8 years of a presidential term?

This would actually be a valid criticism of anyone stupid enough to think that Obama could change the country within 4-8 years. But I think most of us see having Obama's leadership abilities in the White House as the first of a thousand steps.

If Obama can't "change" the racist views of his own pastor and his congregation after 20 YEARS, how can we expect him to change the entire country's attitudes on race relations now, or within 4-8 years of a presidential term?

This would actually be a valid criticism of anyone stupid enough to think that Obama could change the country within 4-8 years. But I think most of us see having Obama's leadership abilities in the White House as the first of a thousand steps.

There is no linkage between Reynolds and oldpunk comparable to the 20 year association between Obama and Wright. Pretending they are somehow comparable is inaccurate, hence false.

For GG to blatently attempt to smear GR on the "same" basis Obama disgraced himself reveals GG as nasty and stupid. GG and toadies may claim they are fighting fire with fire but what they're doing is arson.

Your right slag, even if he were a white guy ( and lets not forget the most liberal member of the Senate, attached at the hip with an indicted corrupt political fixer, and marinated since a child in Marxist rhetoric) I would inexplicably be against Hope and Change.

That's a different issue. If you want to argue against Obama on policy grounds, more power to you. But I don't know anything about Obama's Marxist rhetoric. From what I've seen, the vast majority of his statements have been thoughtful, rational, and inspired. But by all means, feel free to call me names and re-direct the issue again if it makes you feel more comfortable.

There is no linkage between Reynolds and oldpunk comparable to the 20 year association between Obama and Wright. Pretending they are somehow comparable is inaccurate, hence false.

Stating your opinion as fact doesn't really help your argument. Reynolds says he wasn't there when Oldpunk made his inflammatory statements, Obama says he wasn't there when Wright made his inflammatory statements. And if length of time is an issue for you, I'd say that is actually in Obama's favor. Knowing someone better often contextualizes their perspective in a way that allows you to overlook some of their more irrational sentiments. We could debate whether overlooking them is right or wrong, but I would argue that anyone who says they've never done it is either lying or not at all introspective.

His birth mama, was an avowed Marxist. His grampa's good friend and an ackowledged mentor per Obama's own penned word, a documented member of the Communist Party USA. William Ayers Weather Underground member which had violent overthrow of the government just like Marxism as its goal, his political mentor in Chicago. Another Weather Underground member and mentor, who name currently escapes was also a documented member of the CPUSA. Finally Rev Wright whose Black Liberation Theology is modeled after the Latin American Liberation Theology which itself was Marxist inspired. Only Wright decided to blend in a bunch of racist rhetoric in his home brew.

You might try getting up to speed, before showing up and annoucing everyone here is a racist ( implied ) and stupid ( your exact word ). There are many reasons to be opposed to Barack. Not the least of which is a woefully short resume bereft of any real accomplishments that might lead one to believe he might be anything other than a neophyte disaster ala Jimmy Carter.

Obama says he wasn't there when Wright made his inflammatory statements ...

When that proved untenable he changed his story.

That there is no linkage between Reynolds and oldpunk comparable to the 20 year association between Obama and Wright is an observation. Calling it an opinion is incorrect. If there is some unobserved linkage that you are aware of it is up to you to bring it out in the open. That you haven't illustrates the weakness of your chosen position.

But apparently you dont feel so constrained? Didn't you just admit you were uninformed about his Marxist ties? How do you dismiss, what you are admittedly ignorant about? Or is this one of those things conservatives never get about liberals?

His birth mama, was an avowed Marxist. His grampa's good friend and an ackowledged mentor per Obama's own penned word, a documented member of the Communist Party USA. William Ayers Weather Underground member which had violent overthrow of the government just like Marxism as its goal, his political mentor in Chicago. Another Weather Underground member and mentor, who name currently escapes was also a documented member of the CPUSA. Finally Rev Wright whose Black Liberation Theology is modeled after the Latin American Liberation Theology which itself was Marxist inspired. Only Wright decided to blend in a bunch of racist rhetoric in his home brew.

Guilt by association again? I thought you guys didn't like that stuff. I point to what someone says and does as evidence of who they are and you point to their relatives and a single member of their social group. I thought this was a conservative blog.

Obama prefaced his remark that he had not been present for inflammatory remarks with 'Let me be honest with you'. A few days later he admitted being present. This guy is a liar as well as a racist. Probably a closet Marxist, too. Taquiya they taught him in Indonesia. No wonder one of his minions is so happy to scream 'McCarthy'.

Wright is a huge albatross. Obama is stuck with it. His one chance was a powerful and persuasive repudiation. He'll still have to do it, but his credibility on the issue is shot. A liar he is, a BIG, FAT, LIAR.
===================================

Are you bright enough to know what the word mentor means? Have read any parts of the two books that Obama has authored? Where he calls Ayers a mentor and Karl a mentor ( Karl being Karl Davis CPUSA member ).

You have tied yourself up into knots, say that is kinda like the way GG does it most of the time? Socky is that you?

This whole business about Reynolds is grasping at straws, a mote/beam thing. It's distraction from the blatant racism that is part and parcel of Obama's projection of guilt.

A lot of 'typical white persons' are pissed because they are a lot more post racial than Obama apparently is. His grandmother is less of a racist than he is. Get over this inauthentic, manufactured, lollipop. He is a bad person. Rather typical, I might add.
================================

Obama prefaced his remark that he had not been present for inflammatory remarks with 'Let me be honest with you'. A few days later he admitted being present. This guy is a liar as well as a racist.

This is untrue. Obama said specifically that he wasn't in church when those particular remarks were made. And even Bill Kristol had to admit that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. But yes, Obama did say that he heard him make statements that were considered "controversial". A possibly dubious hedge but not a lie.

I like that 'soul of a serf'. It is my observation that the most guilt ridden liberals are actually the least post racial among us.

Obama's schtick appeals to northern white liberals. Too the progs. It works in caucuses, not in general elections. The general population can smell racism when it is in the air, and knows when it is appropriate or not. We are past Obama, he is an anachronism, and readily recognizable as such.
=======================================

Are you bright enough to know what the word mentor means? Have read any parts of the two books that Obama has authored? Where he calls Ayers a mentor and Karl a mentor ( Karl being Karl Davis CPUSA member ).

You have tied yourself up into knots, say that is kinda like the way GG does it most of the time? Socky is that you?

Posted by: GMax | March 24, 2008 at 02:58 PM

Yes, I know what the word mentor means. I've had many. And have disagreed in many areas with most of the ones I've had.

Apparently, your version of being tied in knots is different from mine.